I'm gonna toss this out there, to see the responses to the ad. Is it racial pandering or is this an issue? Let's keep it constructive & intelligent so it doesn't get locked.

The message on dozens of billboards across the city is provocative: Black children are an "endangered species."The eyebrow-raising ads featuring a young black child are an effort by the anti-abortion movement to use race to rally support within the black community.

In 2008, Issues4Life, a California-based group working to end abortion in the black community, lobbied Congress to stop funding Planned Parenthood, calling black abortions "the Darfur of America."

I don't think that it's a numbers anomaly as the sample sizes seem big enough for the results to be significant. As for the root cause, I would guess that it has less to do (or nothing at all to do) with ethnic anomaly. There are probably multiple factor that go in to something like this. My guess is that the biggest one is more socioeconomic than racial.

The only way I know how to answer this is to go down the same conservative road that I always go down. I am sure everyone knows the argument that there is a lack of reponsibilty caused by social welfare. This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early. My arguments are probably the mainstream conservative viewpoint. I just don't really know any other way to explain it, that makes sense to me...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early.

I'd love to see the numbers for homes with one parent vs. two parents. I'd bet Redneck's right testicle that the number of teen pregnancy has a stronger correlation to that, than anything else.

I know 2 things about teenagers: they are dumb and they want to get laid. Deadly combination. If they live in a single parent homes, they have little supervision by the the time they are 14 or 15, especially if the parent works non-standard hours. One of the biggest road blocks for teen sex is location, finding a place. If there's no adult home that no longer becomes an issue.

Throw in the money thing, and you've got entire communities of teenage children with little supervision and plenty of chances. Add a dash of dumb, and not only do they have the opportunity, but they lack the knowledge to make any type of informed decision.

Amen, sometimes trying to find root causes to these problems takes us down political roads when it is completely unecessary. Boiled down to location and opportunity, single parent ups that big time, and throws alot of the the "little things" that tip the scales.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Maybe she is using "we" to be the majority of the country (which makes no sense in context, since the majority of the country at the time was anti-abortion), or maybe she means "we" to mean "me and people who think like me".

Orenthal wrote:The only way I know how to answer this is to go down the same conservative road that I always go down. I am sure everyone knows the argument that there is a lack of reponsibilty caused by social welfare. This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early. My arguments are probably the mainstream conservative viewpoint. I just don't really know any other way to explain it, that makes sense to me...

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Maybe she is using "we" to be the majority of the country (which makes no sense in context, since the majority of the country at the time was anti-abortion), or maybe she means "we" to mean "me and people who think like me".

Just for some extra context, lawyers/law professors/judges use "we" a lot in a non-personal sense. A lot of times it's more like the "royal we" in speaking for "the government" or whichever party (not in a political sense) they are referring to or advocating on behalf of. When I read this particular interview when it first came out, I took her use of "we" to mean America (or "society"), in a very broad sense.

jfiling wrote:I'd hope everyone around here is well-read enough to know that Planned Parenthood was founded in order to reduce births among the "undesirable" elements of society. This is a fact.

I didn't interpret that at all. In fact, she doesn't mention Planned Parenthood anywhere in that interview. And the statement you bolded doesn't say that either. I took "don't want to have too many of" to mean unwanted children.

Orenthal wrote:The only way I know how to answer this is to go down the same conservative road that I always go down. I am sure everyone knows the argument that there is a lack of reponsibilty caused by social welfare. This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early. My arguments are probably the mainstream conservative viewpoint. I just don't really know any other way to explain it, that makes sense to me...

Welfare destroyed the fabric of the African-American family. Got it.

Beam me up Scottie.

Dude, you need to go to a library. Something. Seriously.

What book do you want me to take out? White Guilt? Anything by Thomas Sowell or are those books not credible? I prefaced that the idea was conservative, and I figured you would be the first to jump in with hyperbole that is going nowhere...

Orenthal wrote:This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early.

I know 2 things about teenagers: they are dumb and they want to get laid. Deadly combination. If they live in a single parent homes, they have little supervision by the the time they are 14 or 15, especially if the parent works non-standard hours. One of the biggest road blocks for teen sex is location, finding a place. If there's no adult home that no longer becomes an issue.

I wrote a paper on teenage sex last year and there are a bunch of factors that go into it.

The biggest thing IMO is that most young teens seem to have no morals. If a teen wants to have sex theres really not much that is going to stop them. I wouldn't even say that two parent homes make much of a difference because teens will find a way to do it even when their parents are home.

Let alone some parents buy their kids condoms because they want them to be "safe". I'm not saying safe sex is a bad thing but 14 and 15 year olds shouldn't be having sex at all.

Orenthal wrote:This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early.

I know 2 things about teenagers: they are dumb and they want to get laid. Deadly combination. If they live in a single parent homes, they have little supervision by the the time they are 14 or 15, especially if the parent works non-standard hours. One of the biggest road blocks for teen sex is location, finding a place. If there's no adult home that no longer becomes an issue.

I wrote a paper on teenage sex last year and there are a bunch of factors that go into it.

The biggest thing IMO is that most young teens seem to have no morals. If a teen wants to have sex theres really not much that is going to stop them. I wouldn't even say that two parent homes make much of a difference because teens will find a way to do it even when their parents are home.

Let alone some parents buy their kids condoms because they want them to be "safe". I'm not saying safe sex is a bad thing but 14 and 15 year olds shouldn't be having sex at all.

Most young teens have no morals? What does that even mean? Did you do some kind of double blind study on this for your paper? Jeez, I can't believe that you think that teenagers haven't been horny and having sex for decades. The reason I wasn't having sex when I was 15 was because I couldn't talk a girl into it. And, that goes for EVERY GUY I KNEW!

Orenthal wrote:This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early.

I'd love to see the numbers for homes with one parent vs. two parents. I'd bet Redneck's right testicle that the number of teen pregnancy has a stronger correlation to that, than anything else.

I know 2 things about teenagers: they are dumb and they want to get laid. Deadly combination. If they live in a single parent homes, they have little supervision by the the time they are 14 or 15, especially if the parent works non-standard hours. One of the biggest road blocks for teen sex is location, finding a place. If there's no adult home that no longer becomes an issue.

Throw in the money thing, and you've got entire communities of teenage children with little supervision and plenty of chances. Add a dash of dumb, and not only do they have the opportunity, but they lack the knowledge to make any type of informed decision.

Erie Warrior wrote:Throw in the money thing, and you've got entire communities of teenage children with little supervision and plenty of chances. Add a dash of dumb, and not only do they have the opportunity, but they lack the knowledge to make any type of informed decision.

The billboards should read: Endangered Species- 2 parent homes.

There's a strong correlation between teen pregnancy and intelligence.

Have you read "The Bell Curve"?

I don't doubt this for a second.

A while ago I worked in an office in Chillicothe where the vast majority of my patients were on welfare. I noticed a few things about the patient base.

1. There was an overwhelming sense of entitlement. Most people had no job and that's just the way it was. That's how they lived. They got their welfare checks and they made it last until the next one. And, they seemed to think they had earned it somehow. That is was owed to them.

2. Most of the "families" had multiple kids.

3. It wasn't unusual (in fact it was normal) for the 34 year old grandmother to bring her 17 year old daughter to an appointment and watch the 3 year old granddaughter in the waiting room. I would guess that well over half of my 16-17 year old welfare patients had kids or were pregnant.

Welfare was a way of life for most of these people and I got very little indication that many people were looking to change. In fact, it almost seemed like it hadn't even occured to these people that they could change anything.

Hell, get a job? No way. Can't risk losing that govnmt check. Another kid? OK then, my check will just get bigger.

Most of my patients were white. That leads me to think that it really is more of an economic issue than an ethnic one.

And, I hate to say it, but like LP said, most of these people didn't seem very bright.

Lead Pipe wrote:There's a strong correlation between teen pregnancy and intelligence.

Have you read "The Bell Curve"?

Never read it, but I was pretty smart, and all I wanted to do was get laid. Was there a particular idea you could paraphrase? I will say that, at least in Virginia, the school are failing miserably at teaching anatomy and body systems. Even in health. Most biology classes spend no more than 2 days on it (it falls right before the state tests, so there's about 3 solid weeks of review and prep instead).

Sex Ed needs to be a requirement for every graduate, and they need it as a freshman or before. The problem with that is maturity, they can't get past the words. Saying penis or vagina to 25+ 13 year olds short circuits their brain.

jfiling wrote:I'd hope everyone around here is well-read enough to know that Planned Parenthood was founded in order to reduce births among the "undesirable" elements of society. This is a fact.

I didn't interpret that at all. In fact, she doesn't mention Planned Parenthood anywhere in that interview. And the statement you bolded doesn't say that either. I took "don't want to have too many of" to mean unwanted children.

I'm not sure how the word "populations" can be used to mean "unwanted children" instead of "groups of people", but it's not a point worth arguing too much. Anyway, the reason this group is putting up these billboards is to highlight the ongoing connection between Planned Parenthood and the high abortion rate among minorities. Of course, correlation does not equal causation, etc.

Erie Warrior wrote:Throw in the money thing, and you've got entire communities of teenage children with little supervision and plenty of chances. Add a dash of dumb, and not only do they have the opportunity, but they lack the knowledge to make any type of informed decision.

The billboards should read: Endangered Species- 2 parent homes.

There's a strong correlation between teen pregnancy and intelligence.

Have you read "The Bell Curve"?

I don't doubt this for a second.

A while ago I worked in an office in Chillicothe where the vast majority of my patients were on welfare. I noticed a few things about the patient base.

1. There was an overwhelming sense of entitlement. Most people had no job and that's just the way it was. That's how they lived. They got their welfare checks and they made it last until the next one. And, they seemed to think they had earned it somehow. That is was owed to them.

2. Most of the "families" had multiple kids.

3. It wasn't unusual (in fact it was normal) for the 34 year old grandmother to bring her 17 year old daughter to an appointment and watch the 3 year old granddaughter in the waiting room. I would guess that well over half of my 16-17 year old welfare patients had kids or were pregnant.

Welfare was a way of life for most of these people and I got very little indication that many people were looking to change. In fact, it almost seemed like it hadn't even occured to these people that they could change anything.

Hell, get a job? No way. Can't risk losing that govnmt check. Another kid? OK then, my check will just get bigger.

Most of my patients were white. That leads me to think that it really is more of an economic issue than an ethnic one.

And, I hate to say it, but like LP said, most of these people didn't seem very bright.

Little story concerning your #1, and sense of entitlement. This story, by the way, was the emphasis for LP to tell his wife not to tell him anymore stories.

The wife is a director of Audiology down at University hospital. One of her cochlear implant patients comes in. (Cochlear implant surgery involves a surgery in which a device is planted basiclly in your skull, and than a hearing aid device is placed on your ear for transmission purposes. Basically, it allows some deaf people to hear) Anyways, the wife notices that the little girl does not have her device.

The Wife: Wher's your DeviceMother: Ugghh, she lost it.(Pay attention to the line of questioning the wife has to use - not conversing with Einstein)The Wife; Well, did you look for it?Mother: She lost it on Monday.....I thinkThe Wife; Did you LOOK for it?Mother; Well, it was dark when she fugured out it was missing after schoolThe Wife: It's Thursday, it's been light out several times since.....

So, you've got a girl, that had a five figure surgery FREE. She had a device, worth another couple grand, FREE. If you go thru life paying for things, and you lose something worth a couple grand, you're on your hands and knees all night looking for it. If you pay for nothing, well, hey, what the hell - no big deal, I'll just stick my hand out again.

And by the way taxpayers. she does get a free replacement.

What is each generation learning from the previous one? In this family...in many families.

When Euclid High School provides a DAY CARE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL, might that tell the 8th grader that had a kid, to go ahead and have another in the 11th - we'll take care of that for you.

By the way, you'd be shocked how many young parents DON'T SHOW UP for their kid's recommended hearing screenings. Think about that for a second, something is wrong with your 6 month old. The Doctor assigns a screening to rule things in or out. Now, it's hearing - one of your five fucking senses. Hearing, balance, social skills, hell. quality of life all in the balance. You think you might want to get your ass out of bed and get your kid in there. Too much trouble for you ? And again, this isn't every once in a while, it's with regularity. If you don't give a shit about your kid, what do you give a shit about - your property? Keeping a job? And most importantly, as it applies to this thread - what the hell do you think THAT kid is going to care about?

With exceptions to be sure, but as a rule, teenage parents are not too sharp, and maybe, as mentioned above, it's not all their fault, but it is what it is.

Bad parenting is the countries biggest problem, and teenage parents are the worst of all.

Orenthal wrote:This causes the lack of a true "family unit", which would preach responsibilty and caution towards having childern that early.

I know 2 things about teenagers: they are dumb and they want to get laid. Deadly combination. If they live in a single parent homes, they have little supervision by the the time they are 14 or 15, especially if the parent works non-standard hours. One of the biggest road blocks for teen sex is location, finding a place. If there's no adult home that no longer becomes an issue.

I wrote a paper on teenage sex last year and there are a bunch of factors that go into it.

The biggest thing IMO is that most young teens seem to have no morals. If a teen wants to have sex theres really not much that is going to stop them. I wouldn't even say that two parent homes make much of a difference because teens will find a way to do it even when their parents are home.

Let alone some parents buy their kids condoms because they want them to be "safe". I'm not saying safe sex is a bad thing but 14 and 15 year olds shouldn't be having sex at all.

CDT I am only 16 pages in, what was your opinion. I admit I mostly read books from the right. If you can think of one thats balanced from the left I would love to mix it in. Even though popular culture and High School/College history probably already balanced that out...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:CDT I am only 16 pages in, what was your opinion. I admit I mostly read books from the right. If you can think of one thats balanced from the left I would love to mix it in. Even though popular culture and High School/College history probably already balanced that out...

Not really my cup of tea. I've seen Goldberg on Bill Maher's show a few times and find him more likeable there. The book is kinda myopic IMO, but of course i'm a liberal so it's natural for me to take that view.

As for Liberal books, I really haven't been reading much from them lately. I'm a big fan of Matt Taibbi, but I think you'll find him too biased. I would suggest trying some PJ O'Rourke, he's a Conservative with a really funny sense of humor. He's written for Rolling Stone (like Taibbi), but he also writes for The Weekly Standard.

e0y2e3 wrote:^ why I don't participate in this forum. I'd get banned in a week.

Actually, for the nature of the topic, I think this is a quality discussion. We lost some good stuff, including the flaming of that post, when the board was updated. I still prefer the "education over abstinence" route, but Lead Man and Herm made good points about where education begins. At home. This topic may be a little closer to home for me because I usually have 4-6 students every year who have babies during the school year, so I'd rather do the ounce of prevention thing, but the outcome may still be the same.

That is all good and well, but are you going to tell me that the point he raised in that post, the way he set that post up and the way he answered indicate that said post was referring to a paper that was a above a seventh or bad community college level?

I mean I can show you informercials on youtube that are deeper.

The way that post was written said a lot about RACIST the poster, IMO.

Or am I saying that the fact that a racist fuck that is either in seventh grade or in CC and has the intellectual abilities of a postal stamp doesn't deserve being allow to write, let alone given credit for making a solid point.

e0y2e3 wrote:Or am I saying that the fact that a racist fuck that is either in seventh grade or in CC and has the intellectual abilities of a postal stamp doesn't deserve being allow to write, let alone given credit for making a solid point.

e0y2e3 wrote:Or am I saying that the fact that a racist fuck that is either in seventh grade or in CC and has the intellectual abilities of a postal stamp doesn't deserve being allow to write, let alone given credit for making a solid point.

No dude, I was glad to see it. His point (as per usual) was epically stupid. I sometimes feel like I'm coming off like a complete dick too often when I continually respond to him and GameTime. But, when I read an "I wrote a paper" take like this I just can't help it. It deserves ridicule and I feel like I'm doing humanity a disservice if I'm not pointing it out.

e0y2e3 wrote:Or am I saying that the fact that a racist fuck that is either in seventh grade or in CC and has the intellectual abilities of a postal stamp doesn't deserve being allow to write, let alone given credit for making a solid point.

Frankly, racists at that age should just be shot.

Survival of the fittest and all.

"I wrote a paper"

You're just gonna hammer him till he melts or leaves, huh?

Of course.

Six year old mentally challenged racist Cowboy fan?

What else should I do, blow him?

Just let it be?

I know you fancy yourself as some kind of Message Board Sheriff or whatever, but he'll get himself banned soon enough. You would just be depriving the rest of us a good chuckle.

e0y2e3 wrote: but are you going to tell me that the point he raised in that post, the way he set that post up and the way he answered indicate that said post was referring to a paper that was a above a seventh or bad community college level?

Not at all. That's why I said some of the stuff we lost was the flaming of that post. It's pure shit. But the other comments are decent. And get to work on that Game Time guy as well, his internet diarrhea is really wearing thin.